Allowed

Karamveer Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2019BAIL/22946/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the applicant charged under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The court directed the release on bond and surety, imposed conditions against tampering and adjournments, and ordered the trial court to conclude the case expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon execution of a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, subject to specific conditions including appearance dates and prohibition of harassment.

Karamveer Singh Vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 51

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22946 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Karamveer Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶6

Applicant has moved the present second bail application seeking bail in Case Crime No. 601 of 2014, under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. and section 3/4 D P. Act, P.S. Medical, District Meerut. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected vide order of this Court dated 15.3.2018 passed in crl. misc. bail application no. 25778 of 2016.

¶7

I have perused the prosecution story as set up in the F.I.R. and also the first bail rejection order.

¶8

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is to the effect that though it is correct to say that the applicant is the husband but the cause of death of his wife as per the postmortem report is asphyxia due to antemortem injuries; viscera was preserved; as far as injuries are concerned, it appears that there is only ligature mark on the neck; the accused applicant is in jail since 20.11.2014 and there are as many as 17 witnesses and till date only six witnesses have been examined and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future; in case the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the said liberty.

¶9

Learned AGA has opposed the bail application of the applicant .

¶10

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the reasons and also in view of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Dataram v. State of U.P.; 2018 (3) SCC 22, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view of this Court will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.

¶11

The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.

¶12

Let the applicant Karamveer Singh involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:

¶13

i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶14

ii) The applicant shall not threaten or harass the prosecution witnesses.

¶15

iii) The applicant shall appear on the date fixed by the trial court.

¶16

iv) The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which the applicant is accused, or suspected of the commission, of which

¶17

applicant is suspected.

¶18

v) The applicant shall not directly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade the applicant from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶19

In case of default of any of the conditions enumerated above, the learned counsel for the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.

¶20

However, it is further directed that the aforesaid case crime number pending before the concerned court below be decided expeditiously, as early as possible in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment.

¶21

It is made clear that in case the witnesses are not appearing, the concerned court is directed to initiate necessary coercive measure for ensuring their presence.

¶22

It is also made clear that the applicant will not seek any adjournment before the trial court during trial and the trial court is directed not to grant any adjournment to the applicant but for the exceptional circumstances and if it is granted the reasons must be recorded in the order.

¶23

Let a copy of the order be certified to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

¶24

Order Date :- 20.8.2019 Kuldeep

Karamveer Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karamveer Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayedan Khatoon Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Hitendra Kumar Gaur Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neeraj Kumar Saini and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Abhishek Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Prakash Alias Goli Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahnabaj Vs State of U.P.